Of all the issues identified so far, reverts strike me as the most significant. You revert vandalism, you don't want to have to re-apply sighting. This happens right now both on manual and automatic reverts.
We're already applying sighting automatically when the user is in the editor group and the current version is sighted. How about also doing so if the current version is not sighted, _and_ the text of the submission is identical to the text of the most recently sighted revision?
There would be some performance hit due to the comparison, but hopefully it wouldn't be too bad as it would only kick in on reverts. Is the basic idea sound? Is there a simpler way?
Well, you can skip the comparison when using the rollback-tools. With manual reverts, the usual procedure could apply. Otherwise, I think this is a good idea, although this brings me to a question that came up when testing with templates:
It seems that templates are not stored with a stable version anymore? Is that correct, Aaron? Because if they are or will be again in the future, this leads to a problem with automatic reverts.
Bye,
Philipp
2007/10/5, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
Of all the issues identified so far, reverts strike me as the most significant. You revert vandalism, you don't want to have to re-apply sighting. This happens right now both on manual and automatic reverts.
We're already applying sighting automatically when the user is in the editor group and the current version is sighted. How about also doing so if the current version is not sighted, _and_ the text of the submission is identical to the text of the most recently sighted revision?
There would be some performance hit due to the comparison, but hopefully it wouldn't be too bad as it would only kick in on reverts. Is the basic idea sound? Is there a simpler way?
-- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
On 05/10/2007, P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that templates are not stored with a stable version anymore? Is that correct, Aaron?
Um, that would be really bad, and is a really glaring avenue for vandalism.
- d.
The expanded text at the time is stored, with tables listing the corresponding template/image version used when parsed. It is still the same...
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:05:24 +0100 From: dgerard@gmail.com To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Reverts
On 05/10/2007, P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that templates are not stored with a stable version anymore? Is that correct, Aaron?
Um, that would be really bad, and is a really glaring avenue for vandalism.
- d.
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct
I tested this in http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5/Berlin: the old version http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5?title=Berlin&oldid=190 was created when the template was not vandalized, still the current, vandalized template is shown.
Bye,
Philipp
2007/10/5, Aaron Schulz jschulz_4587@msn.com:
The expanded text at the time is stored, with tables listing the corresponding template/image version used when parsed. It is still the same...
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:05:24 +0100 From: dgerard@gmail.com To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Reverts
On 05/10/2007, P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that templates are not stored with a stable version anymore? Is that correct, Aaron?
Um, that would be really bad, and is a really glaring avenue for
vandalism.
- d.
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. Play Now! _______________________________________________ Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
No, it looks fine to me:
http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5?title=Berlin&stable=1
That is the stable version. The old static version are here http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5?title=Special:Stableversions&page=Berlin . They are fine too.
The UI saying "current & sighted" is misleading. Erik changed it to do that if the current rev ID = latest stable rev ID. I avoided that because images and templates might differ. For logged in users, they see the current revision. But if it the ID = last stable ID, the message shows like "current & reviewed" whatever, which is misleading. I'm tempted to revert the changes. Another issue is that someone locally turned off the "stable" tab.
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 10:07:22 +0200 From: pbirken@gmail.com To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Reverts
I tested this in http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5/Berlin: the old version http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5?title=Berlin&oldid=190 was created when the template was not vandalized, still the current, vandalized template is shown.
Bye,
Philipp
2007/10/5, Aaron Schulz jschulz_4587@msn.com:
The expanded text at the time is stored, with tables listing the corresponding template/image version used when parsed. It is still the same...
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:05:24 +0100 From: dgerard@gmail.com To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Reverts
On 05/10/2007, P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that templates are not stored with a stable version anymore? Is that correct, Aaron?
Um, that would be really bad, and is a really glaring avenue for
vandalism.
- d.
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. Play Now! _______________________________________________ Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct
The previous behavior was even more broken. We should only show the "current and sighted" message if both the page _and_ all templates are sighted.
On 10/6/07, Aaron Schulz jschulz_4587@msn.com wrote:
No, it looks fine to me:
http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5?title=Berlin&stable=1
That is the stable version. The old static version are here http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5?title=Special:Stableversions&page=Berlin . They are fine too.
The UI saying "current & sighted" is misleading. Erik changed it to do that if the current rev ID = latest stable rev ID. I avoided that because images and templates might differ. For logged in users, they see the current revision. But if it the ID = last stable ID, the message shows like "current & reviewed" whatever, which is misleading. I'm tempted to revert the changes. Another issue is that someone locally turned off the "stable" tab.
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 10:07:22 +0200 From: pbirken@gmail.com
To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Reverts
I tested this in http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5/Berlin:
the old
version
http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5?title=Berlin&oldid=190 was
created when the template was not vandalized, still the current, vandalized template is shown.
Bye,
Philipp
2007/10/5, Aaron Schulz jschulz_4587@msn.com:
The expanded text at the time is stored, with tables listing the corresponding template/image version used when parsed. It is still the same...
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:05:24 +0100 From: dgerard@gmail.com To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Reverts
On 05/10/2007, P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that templates are not stored with a stable version
anymore?
Is that correct, Aaron?
Um, that would be really bad, and is a really glaring avenue for
vandalism.
- d.
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. Play Now! _______________________________________________ Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. Play Now! _______________________________________________ Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
In that case, even one change to a template would make it not show. I fear that on wikipedia, that condition would rarely show up, and I'm not sure it's worth the performance hit.
What I am doing is improving the "diff to stable" to list out the templates/images changed.
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 18:45:03 +0200 From: erik@wikimedia.org To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Reverts
The previous behavior was even more broken. We should only show the "current and sighted" message if both the page _and_ all templates are sighted.
On 10/6/07, Aaron Schulz jschulz_4587@msn.com wrote:
No, it looks fine to me:
http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5?title=Berlin&stable=1
That is the stable version. The old static version are here http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5?title=Special:Stableversions&page=Berlin . They are fine too.
The UI saying "current & sighted" is misleading. Erik changed it to do that if the current rev ID = latest stable rev ID. I avoided that because images and templates might differ. For logged in users, they see the current revision. But if it the ID = last stable ID, the message shows like "current & reviewed" whatever, which is misleading. I'm tempted to revert the changes. Another issue is that someone locally turned off the "stable" tab.
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 10:07:22 +0200 From: pbirken@gmail.com
To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Reverts
I tested this in http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5/Berlin:
the old
version
http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5?title=Berlin&oldid=190 was
created when the template was not vandalized, still the current, vandalized template is shown.
Bye,
Philipp
2007/10/5, Aaron Schulz jschulz_4587@msn.com:
The expanded text at the time is stored, with tables listing the corresponding template/image version used when parsed. It is still the same...
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:05:24 +0100 From: dgerard@gmail.com To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Reverts
On 05/10/2007, P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that templates are not stored with a stable version
anymore?
Is that correct, Aaron?
Um, that would be really bad, and is a really glaring avenue for
vandalism.
- d.
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. Play Now! _______________________________________________ Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. Play Now! _______________________________________________ Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
-- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________ Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by today. http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWL...
Unacceptable. Not indicating that the version the user is looking at is (completely or partially) sighted is a dealbreaker for using this anywhere.
On 10/6/07, Aaron Schulz jschulz_4587@msn.com wrote:
In that case, even one change to a template would make it not show. I fear that on wikipedia, that condition would rarely show up, and I'm not sure it's worth the performance hit.
What I am doing is improving the "diff to stable" to list out the templates/images changed.
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 18:45:03 +0200 From: erik@wikimedia.org
To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Reverts
The previous behavior was even more broken. We should only show the "current and sighted" message if both the page _and_ all templates are sighted.
On 10/6/07, Aaron Schulz jschulz_4587@msn.com wrote:
No, it looks fine to me:
http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5?title=Berlin&stable=1
That is the stable version. The old static version are here
http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5?title=Special:Stableversions&page=Berlin
. They are fine too.
The UI saying "current & sighted" is misleading. Erik changed it to do
that
if the current rev ID = latest stable rev ID. I avoided that because
images
and templates might differ. For logged in users, they see the current revision. But if it the ID = last stable ID, the message shows like
"current
& reviewed" whatever, which is misleading. I'm tempted to revert the changes. Another issue is that someone locally turned off the "stable"
tab.
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 10:07:22 +0200 From: pbirken@gmail.com
To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Reverts
I tested this in
http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5/Berlin:
the old
version
was
created when the template was not vandalized, still the current, vandalized template is shown.
Bye,
Philipp
2007/10/5, Aaron Schulz jschulz_4587@msn.com:
The expanded text at the time is stored, with tables listing the corresponding template/image version used when parsed. It is still
the
same...
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:05:24 +0100 From: dgerard@gmail.com To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Reverts
On 05/10/2007, P. Birken pbirken@gmail.com wrote:
> It seems that templates are not stored with a stable version
anymore?
> Is that correct, Aaron?
Um, that would be really bad, and is a really glaring avenue for
vandalism.
- d.
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. Play Now! _______________________________________________ Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. Play Now! _______________________________________________ Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
-- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by today! _______________________________________________ Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
On 10/6/07, Aaron Schulz jschulz_4587@msn.com wrote:
In that case, even one change to a template would make it not show. I fear that on wikipedia, that condition would rarely show up, and I'm not sure it's worth the performance hit.
I just did a quick sample of en.wp articles. Most have a template of some kind, but most high-use templates are semi-protected, which means they're only likely to be edited by users in the editor group anyway. Those which aren't are typically not edited much at all. So how can you conclude that the "sighted and current" condition would rarely show up? Indeed, everything leads me to conclude that it's the _most common_ condition; it's the one that we want to achieve on everything through ever-improving patrolling mechanism.
To then not show a clear visual indication of the sighted status utterly confounds me from a usability perspective. You end up with an inconsistent UI where icons sometimes show up and sometimes don't with no clear reason why. And you want to explain this with: "Oh, BTW, if you look at the number of changes, and it's 0, then actually, not taking templates into account, the main body of the article has been sighted"? That's a usability nightmare. I found this issue so major that I wasn't even comfortable with taking the extension demo live before at least applying some band-aid.
I do agree that we should make sure it works correctly depending on the template status. Which performance hit are you worried about specifically? Shouldn't it just be a matter of looking up the flagging status of the templatelinks associated with the page in question?
I'm mainly talking about higher profile pages. I looked up George Washington. It has around 50 templates and 17 images. That would require MySQL to scan up to 134 rows on each page view to see if things where changed, and always 134 if you wanted how many templates/images where changed. That's not really worth it.
The UI change was not much better, and it even through of Phillip resulting in some confusion earlier.
There are performance constraints, but also this issue is very much semantic, and I've been aware of it for months.
Before adding band aids or other quick changes, some things need to be though out:
1) What will most people think "revision" and "change" means?
Probably they would thing of either as any change to the content. The MW jargon for revision means wikitext of the text corresponding to a page revision. This ignores templates/images and readers will not get it even if we try to explain.
2) Is that the word we want to use to describe changes?
Since revision is already confusing jargon for newbies, I'd prefer "changes". Any attempt to use any word that means the same as the MW jargon word "revision" will confuse people.
3) So we should always be talking about complete visual states of articles rather than the jargon of "changes not counting templates/images"?
Ideally, that would be nice.
4) How can we refer to any change (including templates/images) without causing unneeded performance drops?
This is the hard question. Currently, the UIs say "X changes need review" or the like. Changes means "MW revision jargon". This is bad. If we *want* to keep stating the number, and refer to ALL changes (templates/images too), that is not efficient, though it is technically possible. You would have to find each image/template that has a newer version the the id/sha_1 assigned to the stable version of the page in question and the run queries on each of those to count how many changes have been made. For George Washington, well, it's a nightmare ;). If want to keep the number, then it most only refer the jargon "revision" word ...
5) Do we want people re-reviewing every time a template is updated?
This would be encouraged if we declared on the tags whether templates are out of sync or not and we wanted to always keep it 100% up to date. I'd actually be confident that most articles get enough edits (which updates templates when autoreviewed or prompts the user to review) that they would stay reasonably up to date. My concern is that if people are constantly re-reviewing a page revision to update templates/images, that the fr_text column will bloat up too much (it will be sizable no matter what, but that would make it worse).
So I'd like to treat uses of the word "change" as what readers would expect: any change to the page. However, I have yet to find a good way to do so.
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 03:52:25 +0200 From: erik@wikimedia.org To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Reverts
On 10/6/07, Aaron Schulz jschulz_4587@msn.com wrote:
In that case, even one change to a template would make it not show. I fear that on wikipedia, that condition would rarely show up, and I'm not sure it's worth the performance hit.
I just did a quick sample of en.wp articles. Most have a template of some kind, but most high-use templates are semi-protected, which means they're only likely to be edited by users in the editor group anyway. Those which aren't are typically not edited much at all. So how can you conclude that the "sighted and current" condition would rarely show up? Indeed, everything leads me to conclude that it's the _most common_ condition; it's the one that we want to achieve on everything through ever-improving patrolling mechanism.
To then not show a clear visual indication of the sighted status utterly confounds me from a usability perspective. You end up with an inconsistent UI where icons sometimes show up and sometimes don't with no clear reason why. And you want to explain this with: "Oh, BTW, if you look at the number of changes, and it's 0, then actually, not taking templates into account, the main body of the article has been sighted"? That's a usability nightmare. I found this issue so major that I wasn't even comfortable with taking the extension demo live before at least applying some band-aid.
I do agree that we should make sure it works correctly depending on the template status. Which performance hit are you worried about specifically? Shouldn't it just be a matter of looking up the flagging status of the templatelinks associated with the page in question? -- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________ Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailn...
On 10/7/07, Aaron Schulz jschulz_4587@msn.com wrote:
I'm mainly talking about higher profile pages. I looked up George Washington. It has around 50 templates and 17 images. That would require MySQL to scan up to 134 rows on each page view to see if things where changed
Not on each pageview. Most hits are on the caches, which are already purged if templates are changed. And you have to load these rows anyway on an uncached hit, since you fetch the template data. So I don't see what the big deal is with also fetching the flagging data.
I'm not convinced at all it's a performance issue. I'll have a chat with Brion about it.
The UI change was not much better, and it even through of Phillip resulting in some confusion earlier.
Yep, in a template vandalism situation. Which is going to be the _exception_, not the rule. The rule we want to strive for _is_ that a page and all its components have been "sighted and current". And giving a clear visual indication of that state is the best way to do that.
But anyway, I'm not arguing we should accept it working inaccurately with templates. I'm arguing it's absolutely worth doing right though.
- What will most people think "revision" and "change" means?
Sorry, but if you're at that level, you've already lost most readers. Seriously. People shouldn't have to care about revisions or changes at all, and most people don't. The point here is to convey in a reader-friendly way that a basic check has taken place. So that I can print the article about a town into a brochure and not worry that it says somewhere in the middle that the residents are all the product of incestuous relationships.
Therefore I think your discussion about the semantics of changes is largely beside the point. From a reader point of view, it's already far too low level.
Also, I don't want to gloss over the other points - I'll write a bit more detailed about templates - but really, I think they pale in comparsion to the significance of the _primary_ reader-oriented indicators we use, and what they will say in what we want to be the most common case: the article _and_ the templates all being sighted.
On 10/7/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10/7/07, Aaron Schulz jschulz_4587@msn.com wrote:
I'm mainly talking about higher profile pages. I looked up George Washington. It has around 50 templates and 17 images. That would require MySQL to scan up to 134 rows on each page view to see if things where changed
Not on each pageview. Most hits are on the caches, which are already purged if templates are changed. And you have to load these rows anyway on an uncached hit, since you fetch the template data. So I don't see what the big deal is with also fetching the flagging data.
I'm not convinced at all it's a performance issue. I'll have a chat with Brion about it.
The UI change was not much better, and it even through of Phillip resulting in some confusion earlier.
Yep, in a template vandalism situation. Which is going to be the _exception_, not the rule. The rule we want to strive for _is_ that a page and all its components have been "sighted and current". And giving a clear visual indication of that state is the best way to do that.
But anyway, I'm not arguing we should accept it working inaccurately with templates. I'm arguing it's absolutely worth doing right though.
- What will most people think "revision" and "change" means?
Sorry, but if you're at that level, you've already lost most readers. Seriously. People shouldn't have to care about revisions or changes at all, and most people don't. The point here is to convey in a reader-friendly way that a basic check has taken place. So that I can print the article about a town into a brochure and not worry that it says somewhere in the middle that the residents are all the product of incestuous relationships.
Therefore I think your discussion about the semantics of changes is largely beside the point. From a reader point of view, it's already far too low level.
-- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colonel_Chaos/study
I really want to avoid a page with a template that says "George Bush born in 1777" or a page with a vagina for the person's infobox say "reviewed, sighted for vandalism", and the reverted change raised that risk. I can only image the SlashDot headlines.
I may talk to Domas to see how efficient it is to check if the templates/images are synced (basically a query similar to the one I recently added to diffs) accept with LIMIT=1 and it would not check images if it already found a changed template. If they are totally synched, I wouldn't have a problem with the tag saying "current, sighted"/"Current, quality" or some such. If such a change is made, both UIs should have it too.
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 05:10:57 +0200 From: erik@wikimedia.org To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Reverts
Also, I don't want to gloss over the other points - I'll write a bit more detailed about templates - but really, I think they pale in comparsion to the significance of the _primary_ reader-oriented indicators we use, and what they will say in what we want to be the most common case: the article _and_ the templates all being sighted.
On 10/7/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 10/7/07, Aaron Schulz jschulz_4587@msn.com wrote:
I'm mainly talking about higher profile pages. I looked up George Washington. It has around 50 templates and 17 images. That would require MySQL to scan up to 134 rows on each page view to see if things where changed
Not on each pageview. Most hits are on the caches, which are already purged if templates are changed. And you have to load these rows anyway on an uncached hit, since you fetch the template data. So I don't see what the big deal is with also fetching the flagging data.
I'm not convinced at all it's a performance issue. I'll have a chat with Brion about it.
The UI change was not much better, and it even through of Phillip resulting in some confusion earlier.
Yep, in a template vandalism situation. Which is going to be the _exception_, not the rule. The rule we want to strive for _is_ that a page and all its components have been "sighted and current". And giving a clear visual indication of that state is the best way to do that.
But anyway, I'm not arguing we should accept it working inaccurately with templates. I'm arguing it's absolutely worth doing right though.
- What will most people think "revision" and "change" means?
Sorry, but if you're at that level, you've already lost most readers. Seriously. People shouldn't have to care about revisions or changes at all, and most people don't. The point here is to convey in a reader-friendly way that a basic check has taken place. So that I can print the article about a town into a brochure and not worry that it says somewhere in the middle that the residents are all the product of incestuous relationships.
Therefore I think your discussion about the semantics of changes is largely beside the point. From a reader point of view, it's already far too low level.
-- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
-- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________ Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailn...
Some thoughts:
One thing that did surely confused me was that the version history does not provide you with stable versions, but was so far left untouched. This means that for example that although a version in the history is marked as sighted (http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5?title=Berlin&action=history), clicking on such a version does not provide you with the stable version. Furthermore, when seeing such a version, the GUI is not shown. I think that showing the stable versions when possible would be much better. And more appropriate anyhow since currently, all templates are shown in their current versions instead of how they were when that version was created. Showing stable versions solves at least that problem.
The next question is, how much do we want to sacrifice for templates? I ask this because we are in the revert-thread here: automatic reverts are an essential tool for vandalism-fighting. However, as its automatic, people can't check the changes in templates. Thus, vandalism in templates can be transported in stable versions. So, what's worth more? Fast reverts or 100% accuracy in templates? Personally, I chose the first one.
All in all, I still think that the original idea is best:
i) Stable versions are defined as now (with templates and images as they were when created), but ii) If current is stable, show the stable text, but the last image and the last sighted template.
Chosing then the appropriate text for the box is IMHO a solvable problem, but all in all this is the most intriguing solution as is still allows templates to change in current versions, but blocks most of the vandalism in templates.
Bye,
Philipp
Page history shows the revision text with current templates/images. Making exceptions for this would confuse people more, especially when trying to revert to an old version (the templates/images would be mysteriously older). Most readers don't go through the history, so this doesn't matter much. What I don't want to do is break the way history works for certain exceptions, which will greatly annoy editors :/
When you say:
ii) If current is stable, show the stable text, but the last image and the last sighted template.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. So when stable = current what would you like shown when: a) viewing the default version (no "stable=" in the url) b) viewing the stable version (&stable=1) c) viewing the current version (&stable=0)
-Aaron Schulz
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 21:10:57 +0200 From: pbirken@gmail.com To: wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] Reverts
Some thoughts:
One thing that did surely confused me was that the version history does not provide you with stable versions, but was so far left untouched. This means that for example that although a version in the history is marked as sighted (http://wikixp.org/qa/index.php5?title=Berlin&action=history), clicking on such a version does not provide you with the stable version. Furthermore, when seeing such a version, the GUI is not shown. I think that showing the stable versions when possible would be much better. And more appropriate anyhow since currently, all templates are shown in their current versions instead of how they were when that version was created. Showing stable versions solves at least that problem.
The next question is, how much do we want to sacrifice for templates? I ask this because we are in the revert-thread here: automatic reverts are an essential tool for vandalism-fighting. However, as its automatic, people can't check the changes in templates. Thus, vandalism in templates can be transported in stable versions. So, what's worth more? Fast reverts or 100% accuracy in templates? Personally, I chose the first one.
All in all, I still think that the original idea is best:
i) Stable versions are defined as now (with templates and images as they were when created), but ii) If current is stable, show the stable text, but the last image and the last sighted template.
Chosing then the appropriate text for the box is IMHO a solvable problem, but all in all this is the most intriguing solution as is still allows templates to change in current versions, but blocks most of the vandalism in templates.
Bye,
Philipp
Wikiquality-l mailing list Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct
2007/10/8, Aaron Schulz jschulz_4587@msn.com:
Page history shows the revision text with current templates/images. Making exceptions for this would confuse people more, especially when trying to revert to an old version (the templates/images would be mysteriously older). Most readers don't go through the history, so this doesn't matter much. What I don't want to do is break the way history works for certain exceptions, which will greatly annoy editors :/
Yes you're right, reverting to older revisions would be confusing that way.
When you say:
ii) If current is stable, show the stable text, but the last image and the last sighted template.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. So when stable = current what would you like shown when: a) viewing the default version (no "stable=" in the url) b) viewing the stable version (&stable=1) c) viewing the current version (&stable=0)
a) The version I mentioned b) The stable version, as created when flagged c) The current version in all regards.
Bye,
Philipp
The number of changes needing review is already listed. Zero indicates that the versions are synched with respect to the page revision.
-Aaron Schulz
_________________________________________________________________ Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailn...
On 10/5/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
There would be some performance hit due to the comparison, but hopefully it wouldn't be too bad as it would only kick in on reverts. Is the basic idea sound? Is there a simpler way?
Not even on all reverts. If an edit is being rolled back then no comparison needs to be performed, just the check as to whether the version being rolled back to has been sighted. It's the same situation where an edit is being undone and it's the most recent revision.
wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org